Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 11, 2011 2:00am-2:30am PST

2:00 am
today, we're not talking about public records, but i also wanted to remind you that when you use technology to communicate by email or by text or other means, even if you are using your own, personal device, if you are communicating about the public business, it is at least possible -- the lot is not very well developed on this issue, there have been a couple of cases, but we have not been given enough guidance yet, but it is possible that that could be subject to disclosure. i want to make sure you are all aware of that. ok, so now we know what a meeting is. we can go on to public notice. of course, all of your public meetings have to be noticed, and your secretary is an expert in
2:01 am
that in making sure that is done properly, and that notice includes your agenda, and you cannot act on any matter or discuss any matter that is not on your agenda. i think you all are well aware of this issue, and just a reminder, it includes discussion. an item that is not on your agenda. director: can i ask for a clarification of the process? >> sure. director: for an item to be on the agenda. >> the way that that works is that your agendas are sent by the director of transportation and the president or the
2:02 am
chairman of your board, who sets the agenda and decides when items will come before the board, so an individual board member does not have the authority to command that a certain item appeared on the agenda at a certain time. that is how the process works. president nolan: but as often happens, and during comments, as director brinkman did, that is -- >> that is ok, because you are hearing from the board, know what items the individual members went on, and you are discussing it with the director, especially if it requires some kind of staff action or staff report. you are making sure. you are doing that in your function as a chair as administrative matter to make sure that everything can come before the board in due course.
2:03 am
and there is no problem with individual board members stating what they would like to have on the agenda, telling the executive director, that they would like to have something on the agenda, asking the chair to place it on the agenda. that is perfectly fine. that is what you do. there are some exceptions to the rule about not discussing items on the agenda. they are extremely rare, but there are some in emergencies. you sometimes will be able to discuss matters that are not on the agenda. of course, our office would be giving you advice about this. i have been in this office for 22 years, and i think the only time i have ever seen this happen was after loma prieta. and this goes back to your
2:04 am
question, about not discussing items on the agenda. it does not prevent people from asking to put something on a future agenda, from a board member following up on public comment, for asking for clarification about what their concern is, a public common with the reference to staff or other resources or asking staff to report back on something that a member of the public is commenting about. so one of the other tenants for public meetings is that the public has a right to comment at all public meetings. they have the right to comment anonymously. your secretary asks for people to provide a speaker card, and that is fine, but if the speaker does not want to fill a speaker card, they have a right to address you.
2:05 am
they have the right to criticize the policy body, criticize members of the policy body, to criticize staff. again, they need to keep on topic. and they do not have the right to discriminate against members of staff, make discriminatory comments. that, again, is a matter that the deputy who is present would be advising about if you got into a situation like that. speakers have a right to equal time. you must give speakers equal time on the particular item, and speakers have the right to translation. the members of the public that do not speak english have a right to have their comments translated, and one more point of clarification because we have had that come up a bit, our understanding is, for example, if we are giving three minutes of public comment, and the person needs translation, it is
2:06 am
three minutes for their comments and three minutes from the transmitter, but if they are translating their own comments, it is a total of three minutes. >> i think that is right, click. >> madam chair, three minutes for the speaker, and then i do not time and all the translator. >> the limits on public comment, speakers have up to three minutes on an item. i know you are all familiar with this. sometimes you get less for everybody. they do not have the right to speak off topic or to discuss other meetings. they do not have the right to a response from the board or staff members. that is absolutely discretionary. and they do not have the right to discriminate against city staff. >> can i? so the no right to speak off topic, sometimes in a meeting we
2:07 am
have some guy talking about steve jobs, just going off, and there was another person who came up and sang a song in the past, and i am wondering -- i understand that they do not have the right to do that so to speak, but i am just curious as to how we should be handling those things in the future because i also want to encourage a sense of discipline from within this room, and i am wondering -- >> president nolan: the singer, i understand that he addresses the board, and it is topical. i had someone injected it from the room by sheriff's because he
2:08 am
just would not stop. it was a very tense situation. in the event that it was kind of widespread and people would not respect that, we have the ability as in the chair to ask for a recess and actually clear the room, but you have to allow them back in, is my understanding, there may be only a few at a time. >> yes, and i have definitely seen that happen. it can be quite effective. it can be really effective to recess the room, to allow people to calm down, to tell people that you want to go on to the meeting and that you want to hear from them and that you do not want them to shots of the people can be heard. i have seen that on more than a few occasions.
2:09 am
i have never seen a chair just let a few people back in at a time, but our office has advised that you can do that if it is absolutely necessary. president nolan: there is something that takes their 2 billion minutes, and they are speaking about something that is fairly jermaine, it is sometimes easier to let them finish. director: maybe some directors do not like that so much. >> that is what i have seen cheers do, interrupt the speaker and say this is the topic, or we are on this item. you can comment on this item, or we are in general public comment. do you have something to say about things that are under our jurisdiction, and generally that leads to it.
2:10 am
you do have a situation sometimes where people for whatever reason, maybe because of a mental disability, really cannot stay on topic, and i think years handle it in different ways. director: i have been thinking that you have done a good job so far , so the thank you. president nolan: we had a meeting before the was almost seven hours long. >> the policy body has to meet in public, and you are allowed
2:11 am
to meet in closed sessions in very limited circumstances. personnel matters, pending litigation, labor negotiations, realistic negotiations. there are a few others that occur from time to time. in terms of closed session, one of the most important things to know is that although some actions that you have taken must be disclosed when you return to open session, and, of course, the board votes after every closed session about whether it wants to disclose the closed session. in general, the closed session is confidential, and if the board has voted to not disclose, then the material, what was said, is confidential, and it is a violation of state law for individual board members to disclose the closed session discussion.
2:12 am
president nolan: have you ever seen in 22 years someone disclose it? >> no, i had never seen the city go after someone. director: what is it that allows us to all go to something like the recent streetcar presentation? >> if it is open to the public, maybe a public meeting, but it is not your public meeting. it is the meeting of a state board or a federal board, it is a ceremonial gathering or other
2:13 am
gatherings, or even a social gathering that is not put on by you, that is not, for example, a christmas party. it happened to be in your circle, and more than a majority showed up. the important thing to remember there is not using that gathering as an opportunity without thinking about it to talk about things that are under your jurisdiction. thank you. president nolan: not coming to my house for christmas. secretary boomer: some members of the public that when it to
2:14 am
discuss with you, but seeing we have no closed session. president nolan: do we need a motion to adjourn? so moved. we are adjourned.
2:15 am
2:16 am
supervisor chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, november 8, 2011. happy election day. hope everyone has voted. madam clerk, could you please call the roll? >> [roll call] mr. president, all members are present. supervisor chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance?
2:17 am
>> to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. supervisor chiu: madam clerk, are there any communications? >> i have no communications. supervisor chiu: our 2:00 p.m. special order will be scheduled until november 15, next week. could you please read items one through 11? >> items 1 through 11 constitute the consent agenda and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. unless a member requests separate discussion of a matter. it shall be removed and discussed separately. supervisor chiu: would anyone like to sever anything from the consent agenda? madam clerk, please call the roll. >> chiu aye. chu aye. cohen aye. farrell aye. kim aye. mar aye.
2:18 am
mirkarimi aye. wiener aye. avalos aye. campos aye. there are 11 ayes. supervisor campos: those items are approved. could you please call item 12? >> item 12, motion reversing findings that a property located at 1171 sansome street is exempt from environmental review. supervisor chiu: i pass out some paper work to more tightly defined the findings are around the slow percentages we have. with that, i would like to make the motion. supervisor campos: can we take
2:19 am
that motion without objection? supervisor chiu: next item, please. >> on the item as amended? supervisor chiu: yes, the item as amended. without objection. >> item 13 is an ordinance be appropriating approximately $304 million in an existing water system improvement program project and every appropriating the funds to the revised wsip program budgets adopted by the san francisco public utilities commission. supervisor chiu: can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, the ordinances passed on the first reading. >> item 14 is an ordinance de- appropriating approximately $17 million of 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond proceeds and real appropriating -- re-up for treating other
2:20 am
projects. supervisor chiu: same house, call? the project is approved. >> item 15 authorizes the office of economic and workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of 5,000,724 $203. adam 16 is an organ is appropriating approximately $3.4 million of state revenue loss reserves and federal revenues for adult day care centers -- item 16 is an ordinance appropriating approximately $3.4 million. supervisor chu: the item came before the budget and finance committee last week. generally, i am support of, in particular because we do see there will be potentially loss of funding as of december 1 and given the critical nature of some of the individuals who receive these services, i believe that bridge funding we
2:21 am
would be providing with this money is something that would be beneficial. the one question we did have centered around the ongoing staffing at the department, in particular for intake and also for referrals, the department did clarify that the positions at the department would be funded with temporary salaries and that future your discussions about what continues on would be part of the budget conversation in the upcoming year, so i am comfortable voting for this and i urge my colleagues to do the same period supervisor chiu: -- to do the same. supervisor chiu: can we take the item same house, call? without objection, passed on the first reading. >> item 17 is a resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2010-2011 civil grand jury report. supervisor chiu: same house,
2:22 am
call? resolution is passed. >> item 18, resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2010-2011 civil grand jury report entitled "whistling in the dark: the san francisco whistleblower program." supervisor chiu: we do not have any 3:30 accommodations. if we could go to roll call. >> president chiu, your first. supervisor chiu: submit. supervisor campos: thank you. at the election day, colleagues. i am requesting it -- happy election day, colleagues. i am requesting a hearing before it to the government and oversight committee on the ethics commission's handling for violations of the sunshine ordinance. the hearing should include consideration of the sunshine
2:23 am
ordinance task force recommended changes for handling those complaints. the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor avalos? supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you. i have a couple of items. a new coalition has come together of food access groups but also small and middle-size farmers to support a fair farm bill. every five years, congress goes through this process, but what we are worried about is the back room deal process going forward by a so-called super committee of 12. we are working with advocacy groups, our food systems director, and others to challenge this back room process and to fight for a fair farm bill that hopefully will help move forward a san francisco's
2:24 am
healthy and sustainable food act of 2009 and other policies past where it shows our strong city commitment to equitable access to affordable and nutritious food and a health-centered food system and a sustainable agriculture system with a vibrant and regional agriculture system as well. other legislation i have been working on has been moving us toward becoming an aging- friendly city that supports seniors as baby boomers become the senior boomers in the next 20 years like myself and a number of my colleagues. i am introducing a resolution to extend the bond maturity date for the senior housing project by three months. as many of you know, the old theater was transformed into the senior campus of the institute on aging to create a more livable senior community with a wraparound services and strong aging in place programs. the project is a 100-50 -- 150-
2:25 am
unit affordable housing project, and it has received capital financing from the mayor's office of housing and redevelopment agency among other sources. bridge, which is an amazing non- profit housing developer, is in the process of closing the california department of housing and community development loan, which was partially -- which will partially repay the bonds as a take out source, so bridge is concerned that permanent financing may not close in time to pay out the bonds due to no fault of the bridge, and the current maturity date is december 1, 2011, said the resolution simply provides a three-month extension, which would avoid technical default on the bonds if they are not paid off by december 1, 2011. in the event that hcd does not close on time, the document would not be signed. because the document must be executed by november 30, 2011,
2:26 am
and because there is no fiscal impact on the city, i am introducing it as a resolution for adoption without reference to the committee, and i urge you to vote in favor to help preserve this exemplary senior housing source. lastly, i will quickly give a heads up that next week, we will be hearing a resolution. i am introducing it today. one of the richmond pride restaurants is ave said. the chef is also an author, and there is an incredible book that he has just written. a special meeting will happen on november 19 at green apple books on the bookstore, but the resolution will acknowledge his 10th anniversary in our neighborhood, and we hope they
2:27 am
will stay forever in the richmond district but also acknowledging the chef's national and international awards and his book signing that is coming up as well. the rest i will submit. thank you. supervisor farrell: thank you. colleagues, have the election day as well -- happy election day as well. i am introducing an amendment that take away our right choice voting system in san francisco. it was an experiment that voters approved in 2002, and the unintended consequences continue to pile up election after election. it is time to stop that. almost a decade later, massive numbers of san franciscans continue to be confused about our voting process in the city. your it talking with people on the street, and it is shown in poll after poll -- you hear it in talking with people on the street. i do not think people should be
2:28 am
spending time thinking about how to vote. it is an interesting game. it has become a chess match between campaigns, but to me, this is not something we should be playing games with. our fundamental right to vote is something we should protect. i believe our leaders here should be elected with a majority vote, plain and simple. people want their vote to count. it is what governs our elections across the country and what governs our chambers here in the board of supervisors. candidates have to play with the rules that are given. those of us running today, those of us who have run in past elections -- we have to play the cards we are dealt, but at a certain point, we have to look at the rules and challenge them and say these rules do not make sense anymore for san francisco. that time is now. i am introducing this charter amendment to be placed on next june's ballot. we will be having hearings about this over the course of the next
2:29 am
two months, and i want to signal that i am not dogmatic about any part of this legislation. i have had conversations with a few of you about other systems where we have such as new york -- where we have the original election in september and the runoff in november. i think we need to have those conversations. some of those are good ideas. the only think i am dogmatic about is that right choice of what brigid voting does not work. -- rank choice of voting does not worke. supervisor avalos: i am actually stunned that the very day we have -- the very day of the election before we have even put it to rest, you are talking about a charter amendment to limit any rank choice voting peer we had an election already with the mayor's race was in question in 2007. the establishment did not make any complaints whatsoever. this


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on